get_slice_settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a non-mutating inspection ('without slicing') and enumerates the setting categories returned (layer height, infill, walls, supports, brim, bed, printer, filaments), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or resolution precedence between source_path and template_name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by an efficient parenthetical field list. No filler, though the parenthetical is long enough that it slightly competes with the core claim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, listing the returned setting categories goes a long way toward filling the return-value gap, and the schema covers source alternatives. The remaining gap is the precedence/interaction between source_path and template_name, which is only documented per-parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their source-resolution semantics. The description's mention of '3MF template or JSON/config profile' loosely maps to source_path and template_name but adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (inspect), a specific resource (slicer settings), and enumerates the source formats and the fields covered. The phrase 'without slicing' implicitly separates it from the sibling slicing tools (slice_stl, slice_with_template), though it never names them, so sibling differentiation is present but not explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without slicing' hints at the use case (read settings before committing to a slice), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the contrast with the slicing siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.